Wortel 2 transformatie aka Rothschild

Alle topics over symboliek, symbolen, getallen, letters, Wortel 2 en dergelijke zaken tref je hier aan.
Gebruikersavatar
BL@DE
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 1547
Lid geworden op: za 09 okt 2010, 09:54

ma 28 jan 2013, 15:32



Gebruikersavatar
dodeca
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 1297
Lid geworden op: zo 28 aug 2011, 19:54

di 29 jan 2013, 12:57

Een groter lulverhaal kan je je haast niet voorstellen!

Multidimensional black holes get electric when flexed

haha en dan komme er een hoop onzin!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... lexed.html
Gebruikersavatar
Het Dolle Eland
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 2601
Lid geworden op: zo 24 okt 2010, 17:26

di 29 jan 2013, 13:30

Dan is het artikeltje dat rechts zijdelings staat wél weer interessanter (maar ook weer net niet helemaal):

KILLING Pluto was only the beginning. The dwarf planet Eris, named for the Greek goddess of strife, could also bring down the most popular explanations for dark matter and dark energy.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... avity.html

"...these bubbling particles may have opposing gravitational charges, similar to electrical charges. In the presence of a gravitational field, the particles would generate a secondary field, which, in the case of galaxies, could explain the mass discrepancy..."

Ach nee laat maar eigenlijk... :blink:
“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” ~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~
Gebruikersavatar
dodeca
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 1297
Lid geworden op: zo 28 aug 2011, 19:54

di 29 jan 2013, 13:34

nog even terug komen op deze: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... lexed.html

ze hebben het over quark-gluon plasma.

een quark is een imaginair deeltje zo ook een gluon, produkten van wiskunde dus ze verzinnen er maar op los!

ze hadden het net zo goed plopplasma kunnen noemen!
Gebruikersavatar
dodeca
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 1297
Lid geworden op: zo 28 aug 2011, 19:54

wo 30 jan 2013, 15:19

langzaam maar zeker........

The tail of Venus

"The observations show that the night side ionosphere moved outward to at least 15 000 km from Venus' centre over a period of only a few hours," said Markus Fraenz, also from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, who was the team leader and a co-author of the paper. "It may possibly have extended for millions of kilometres, like an enormous tail.

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object ... ctid=51315
Gebruikersavatar
dodeca
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 1297
Lid geworden op: zo 28 aug 2011, 19:54

vr 01 feb 2013, 13:31

"Many pulsars have emissions that within a few seconds becomes weaker or even disappears for awhile, just to go back to the previous level after some hours", says Hermsen at ESA. "the fact that the pulsar keeps memory of its previous state and goes back to it suggests it must be something fundamental."

zie: http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object ... ctid=51314

onlangs had ik deze hier gepost

dit alles wordt zeer duidelijk na 21 min in de volgende clip:



als je wil weten hoe en waarom de spaken in de ringen van saturnus en waarom hexagon op de pool van saturnus ga dan naar 50 min van het zelfde filmpje.

blijf verder kijken en je snapt de structuur van jupiter.

Zo weer een mysterie opgelost.

...en nee we hebben geen big bang nodig geen zwarte gaten en geen donkere materie allemaal verzinsels van onbenullige rolstoelers!
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: blackbox, combi, ninti
Omhoog
Gebruikersavatar
Het Dolle Eland
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 2601
Lid geworden op: zo 24 okt 2010, 17:26

za 02 feb 2013, 11:27

The Electric Universe Theory Debunked

I kept hearing about this theory called the “electric universe theory”, and wondered what it was all about. An ex-work colleague was quite worked up about it and even lent me some books. What was this theory and where on earth did it come from?

According to the website www.electricuniverse.info the “Electric Universe theory highlights the importance of electricity throughout the Universe. It is based on the recognition of existing natural electrical phenomena (eg. lightning, St Elmo’s Fire), and the known properties of plasmas (ionized “gases”) which make up 99.999% of the visible universe, and react strongly to electro-magnetic fields.” It goes on to state “Electricity is common throughout the universe, generated by all cosmic plasma as it moves through magnetic fields. Peer reviewed papers describe electricity in the Sun, and associated with the interplanetary medium (solar wind), planets and their satellites, comets, in interstellar space, other stars, and intergalactic space.” Well that sounds pretty convincing, doesn’t it?

We astronomers often stumble across new theories, and after a while a certain degree of ‘learned scepticism’ enters the fray. So I decided to take a closer look at this theory. The theory seemed to be all encompassing and rather difficult to pin down, so in order to do this, I focused on what the theory has to say about our sun in particular. Astrophysicists say that stars, including the sun, are powered by nuclear fusion. However electric universe theorists say this is not so. The reasons given are that:

* we haven’t yet found the neutrinos that must be emitted from such a reaction;
* that the granular structure we see on the sun would not be possible, because convection is impossible due to the conditions there;
* the energy emitted from the sun does not display the inverse square law;
* periodic fluctuations in the sun’s output resemble electric discharge patterns; and
* the solar wind is and effect of charged particles being accelerated in an electric field.

Well that all sounds very plausible and ‘scientificy’. But let’s take a closer look at the arguments one by one.

Neutrinos have not been found?
A neutrino is a particle smaller than an atom with an incredibly small mass to it. They are similar to electrons, but don’t have a charge. They usually travel close to the speed of light, and not having a charge means they are unaffected by electromagnetic forces like other matter, and are able to pass through ordinary matter almost unaffected.

Neutrino observatories are actually underground because the neutrinos pass right through the earth. Neutrinos are created as a by-product result of nuclear fusion (in a nuclear plant or the sun) or when cosmic rays hit atoms. Every second about 65 billion solar neutrinos pass through every square centimetre of earth facing the Sun. Because they have a mass, neutrinos can interact with other particles via gravity.

Scientists have been detecting the effects of neutrinos for years, and they match the predictions exactly. If an alternative theory is to be considered, scientists would need to reject the theory of nuclear fusion at the centre of a star. This would also necessarily lead to rejection of the theories of thermodynamics, gravitation, nuclear physics, statistical physics, electromagnetism, hydrodynamics and magnetohydrodynamics. In other words, most of physics would need to be rejected to address the problem of the ‘missing’ neutrinos.

Electric universe theorists argue that these neutrinos have never been detected, and those inferred by their effects are about half of what would be produced by a fusion reaction in the sun.

Some of you will be familiar with quantum mechanics, where all particles can have both wave and particle properties. Well, neutrinos are confusing too, as they have mass and therefore qualify as a particle. When they are detected they have a probability of being either an electron neutrino or a tau neutrino. We have electron neutrino detectors, and once we build a tau neutrino detector the ‘flux’ will add up to the exact amount to solve the solar problem. So maybe it is a bit premature to throw physics out just yet.

Convection in the sun is impossible?
Electric universe theory argues that the granulation we observe on the surface of the sun cannot be caused by convection bubbling up the layers of the sun. This is based on an assumption by a man called Juergen, that one of the values used in fluid dynamics, the Reynolds number, causes the convection, and at certain values convection cannot occur.
If you imagine a parcel of matter inside the sun towards the surface as the sun’s heat causes it to rise and falling back towards the centre as it cools (like boiling water), the Reynolds number describes a function of the parcel size, length and stickiness.

Juergen assumes that the Reynolds number controls convection but it doesn’t; convection is controlled by the Rayleigh number. The Rayleigh number is a function of the temperature, gravity, the degree of temperature change, stickiness and how diffuse the temperature is. So Juergen made a mistake, oops. The convection that we see on the sun can be explained without throwing away physics.

The sun’s energy breaks the inverse square law?
In physics, the inverse square law states that a specified physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity. So in other words if you move from two metres to four metres away from a heater you increase the distance by two, but decrease the energy by four times (four is the square
of two). Electric universe theory says that because the sun is coolest at its surface, then the temperature jumps up again out at its halo, it does not obey the inverse square law, and physics is wrong.

At this point it is important to note that the inverse square law only applies to radiant energy (as opposed to convection or conduction) and only in a vacuum. When energy moves through an atmosphere (such as the corona of the Sun) then the law does not hold. In addition, the inverse square law applies to all energy, not just heat. The colder ‘surface’ (photosphere) actually has more energy. The energy drops dramatically at the corona as we would expect. There are a myriad of explanations for the temperature differences, none of which involve throwing out physics as we know it.

The sun’s variations prove it is a bag of plasma?
Electric universe theory says that the variations in the sun every 2 hours and 40 minutes or
so can only be explained if the sun was a big bag of gas undergoing periodic electrical discharge. Juergen cites some research that shows this period is what we would expect from a homogenous sphere, rather than the accepted layered model of the sun found intextbooks. Well that is a problem ... isn’t it?

OK, time for some context here. The research cited was in 1976 and the authors stated that it applies only if they are p-mode oscillations. But back then we didn’t have the technology to distinguish between p-mode and g-mode oscillations. Later research, available to the electric universe theorists, showed they were gmode, so basically all the assumptions based on this research went out the window. It doesn’t matter too much what the modes are, the point is that the electric universe theory was based on outdated information from 1976. Very poor research indeed!

The solar wind is caused by an electric field?
In physics an electric field applied to charged particles cause them to accelerate. The Electric universe theory says that the solar wind is the result of such a field, and the Sun is electric, not fusion based.

Maxwell’s theory of acceleration, however, talks about a time variable field, not a fixed one, and what’s more the solar wind contains both positive and negatively charged ions (protons and electrons mainly). An electric sun would be positively charged and all the negatively charged electrons would be attached to it – not be pushed out from the Sun on a solar wind. This fact proves the Sun is not electric.

And then the wheels fell off…
Hmmm. Towards the end of my research I found a notation on Wikipedia about why “Electric Universe Theory” had been removed. Apparently there are only a few people who currently publish ideas on the “electric universe” and those people publish exclusively on the internet or vanity presses. They use very misleading citations gleaned from mainstream sources in an attempt to lend credibility to the “electric universe theory”. Most papers listed as peer reviewed are not about the “electric universe” but about plasma cosmology (a different idea). The “electric universe” has no single paper subject to peer review about its ideas.

Well, it seems this is not a theory that anyone should be hanging their hat on. However, I will say that my little exploration did lead me to learn an awful lot about neutrinos, and our Sun. I hope that next time you read an outlandish theory you might take this journey too. You never know what you might learn.

SOURCE


Link kwam in de SB voorbij. Ik dacht knal het hier maar neer. Ik weet het ook niet hoor. So... don't shoot the moose...
:moose:
“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” ~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~
Gebruikersavatar
combi
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 15999
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 21:27

za 02 feb 2013, 16:07

Hier op thunderbolts forum: http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 240#p68240 kan je over bovenstaande verder lezen.
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: baphomet, Het Dolle Eland, koewacht
Omhoog
Gebruikersavatar
Het Dolle Eland
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 2601
Lid geworden op: zo 24 okt 2010, 17:26

zo 03 feb 2013, 11:57

"A strangely lonely circular/hexagonal mound with a large mixture of minerals/rocks... JohnPeel also has a tail, a mini arête/ridge leading to another area of transformed rock with Quartz".

Quartz is a "replacement" mineral, especially on an limestone/sandstone island like Malta. Maybe it is a "replacement mineral" but the host rock has been converted into quartz by the application and forces of heat, energy, pressure. With the quartz plating in the fissures the missing limestone material itself, transformed into quartz. How the energy to transform the host material into quartz is unknown. Any process that can apply energy and pressure could be the cause.

If these fissures were involved in electrical activity this can create a magnetic field that applies pressure and energy to a localised area.

Read more...
“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” ~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: baphomet
Omhoog
Gebruikersavatar
baphomet
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 23693
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 16:08

zo 03 feb 2013, 14:30

[quote=""Het Dolle Eland" post=67261"] The Electric Universe Theory Debunked

I kept hearing about this theory called the “electric universe theory”, and wondered what it was all about. An ex-work colleague was quite worked up about it and even lent me some books. What was this theory and where on earth did it come from?

According to the website www.electricuniverse.info the “Electric Universe theory highlights the importance of electricity throughout the Universe. It is based on the recognition of existing natural electrical phenomena (eg. lightning, St Elmo’s Fire), and the known properties of plasmas (ionized “gases”) which make up 99.999% of the visible universe, and react strongly to electro-magnetic fields.” It goes on to state “Electricity is common throughout the universe, generated by all cosmic plasma as it moves through magnetic fields. Peer reviewed papers describe electricity in the Sun, and associated with the interplanetary medium (solar wind), planets and their satellites, comets, in interstellar space, other stars, and intergalactic space.” Well that sounds pretty convincing, doesn’t it?

We astronomers often stumble across new theories, and after a while a certain degree of ‘learned scepticism’ enters the fray. So I decided to take a closer look at this theory. The theory seemed to be all encompassing and rather difficult to pin down, so in order to do this, I focused on what the theory has to say about our sun in particular. Astrophysicists say that stars, including the sun, are powered by nuclear fusion. However electric universe theorists say this is not so. The reasons given are that:

* we haven’t yet found the neutrinos that must be emitted from such a reaction;
* that the granular structure we see on the sun would not be possible, because convection is impossible due to the conditions there;
* the energy emitted from the sun does not display the inverse square law;
* periodic fluctuations in the sun’s output resemble electric discharge patterns; and
* the solar wind is and effect of charged particles being accelerated in an electric field.

Well that all sounds very plausible and ‘scientificy’. But let’s take a closer look at the arguments one by one.

Neutrinos have not been found?
A neutrino is a particle smaller than an atom with an incredibly small mass to it. They are similar to electrons, but don’t have a charge. They usually travel close to the speed of light, and not having a charge means they are unaffected by electromagnetic forces like other matter, and are able to pass through ordinary matter almost unaffected.

Neutrino observatories are actually underground because the neutrinos pass right through the earth. Neutrinos are created as a by-product result of nuclear fusion (in a nuclear plant or the sun) or when cosmic rays hit atoms. Every second about 65 billion solar neutrinos pass through every square centimetre of earth facing the Sun. Because they have a mass, neutrinos can interact with other particles via gravity.

Scientists have been detecting the effects of neutrinos for years, and they match the predictions exactly. If an alternative theory is to be considered, scientists would need to reject the theory of nuclear fusion at the centre of a star. This would also necessarily lead to rejection of the theories of thermodynamics, gravitation, nuclear physics, statistical physics, electromagnetism, hydrodynamics and magnetohydrodynamics. In other words, most of physics would need to be rejected to address the problem of the ‘missing’ neutrinos.

Electric universe theorists argue that these neutrinos have never been detected, and those inferred by their effects are about half of what would be produced by a fusion reaction in the sun.

Some of you will be familiar with quantum mechanics, where all particles can have both wave and particle properties. Well, neutrinos are confusing too, as they have mass and therefore qualify as a particle. When they are detected they have a probability of being either an electron neutrino or a tau neutrino. We have electron neutrino detectors, and once we build a tau neutrino detector the ‘flux’ will add up to the exact amount to solve the solar problem. So maybe it is a bit premature to throw physics out just yet.

Convection in the sun is impossible?
Electric universe theory argues that the granulation we observe on the surface of the sun cannot be caused by convection bubbling up the layers of the sun. This is based on an assumption by a man called Juergen, that one of the values used in fluid dynamics, the Reynolds number, causes the convection, and at certain values convection cannot occur.
If you imagine a parcel of matter inside the sun towards the surface as the sun’s heat causes it to rise and falling back towards the centre as it cools (like boiling water), the Reynolds number describes a function of the parcel size, length and stickiness.

Juergen assumes that the Reynolds number controls convection but it doesn’t; convection is controlled by the Rayleigh number. The Rayleigh number is a function of the temperature, gravity, the degree of temperature change, stickiness and how diffuse the temperature is. So Juergen made a mistake, oops. The convection that we see on the sun can be explained without throwing away physics.

The sun’s energy breaks the inverse square law?
In physics, the inverse square law states that a specified physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity. So in other words if you move from two metres to four metres away from a heater you increase the distance by two, but decrease the energy by four times (four is the square
of two). Electric universe theory says that because the sun is coolest at its surface, then the temperature jumps up again out at its halo, it does not obey the inverse square law, and physics is wrong.

At this point it is important to note that the inverse square law only applies to radiant energy (as opposed to convection or conduction) and only in a vacuum. When energy moves through an atmosphere (such as the corona of the Sun) then the law does not hold. In addition, the inverse square law applies to all energy, not just heat. The colder ‘surface’ (photosphere) actually has more energy. The energy drops dramatically at the corona as we would expect. There are a myriad of explanations for the temperature differences, none of which involve throwing out physics as we know it.

The sun’s variations prove it is a bag of plasma?
Electric universe theory says that the variations in the sun every 2 hours and 40 minutes or
so can only be explained if the sun was a big bag of gas undergoing periodic electrical discharge. Juergen cites some research that shows this period is what we would expect from a homogenous sphere, rather than the accepted layered model of the sun found intextbooks. Well that is a problem ... isn’t it?

OK, time for some context here. The research cited was in 1976 and the authors stated that it applies only if they are p-mode oscillations. But back then we didn’t have the technology to distinguish between p-mode and g-mode oscillations. Later research, available to the electric universe theorists, showed they were gmode, so basically all the assumptions based on this research went out the window. It doesn’t matter too much what the modes are, the point is that the electric universe theory was based on outdated information from 1976. Very poor research indeed!

The solar wind is caused by an electric field?
In physics an electric field applied to charged particles cause them to accelerate. The Electric universe theory says that the solar wind is the result of such a field, and the Sun is electric, not fusion based.

Maxwell’s theory of acceleration, however, talks about a time variable field, not a fixed one, and what’s more the solar wind contains both positive and negatively charged ions (protons and electrons mainly). An electric sun would be positively charged and all the negatively charged electrons would be attached to it – not be pushed out from the Sun on a solar wind. This fact proves the Sun is not electric.

And then the wheels fell off…
Hmmm. Towards the end of my research I found a notation on Wikipedia about why “Electric Universe Theory” had been removed. Apparently there are only a few people who currently publish ideas on the “electric universe” and those people publish exclusively on the internet or vanity presses. They use very misleading citations gleaned from mainstream sources in an attempt to lend credibility to the “electric universe theory”. Most papers listed as peer reviewed are not about the “electric universe” but about plasma cosmology (a different idea). The “electric universe” has no single paper subject to peer review about its ideas.

Well, it seems this is not a theory that anyone should be hanging their hat on. However, I will say that my little exploration did lead me to learn an awful lot about neutrinos, and our Sun. I hope that next time you read an outlandish theory you might take this journey too. You never know what you might learn.

SOURCE


Link kwam in de SB voorbij. Ik dacht knal het hier maar neer. Ik weet het ook niet hoor. So... don't shoot the moose...
:moose:
[/quote]

Ja Nex, dumpte die link in de schreeuwdoos zag ik inderdaad...
1119 AD
Gebruikersavatar
Dromen
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 5033
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 06:38

zo 03 feb 2013, 14:35

Lees alleen al het stukje over Neutrino's en je ziet dat het een filterdun artikel is, die gebasseerd is op de wetenschappelijke wetten van de huidige wetenschap (die de 'electric universe'-theorie nou juist weer ontkracht).

Ze, de schrijver in het stuk, erkent de neutrino's ("ze zijn gevonden door wetenschappers, gelijk aan electronen maar zonder lading", etc.). Maar dat is het punt niet. Als je de theorie omtrent het electrisch universum wilt weerleggen moet je niet aantonen waarom neutrino's, quackers, etc. bestaan, maar juist de argumenten van het electrisch universum weerleggen...
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: baphomet, BL@DE, Het Dolle Eland
Omhoog
Gebruikersavatar
combi
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 15999
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 21:27

ma 04 feb 2013, 10:49

YOUTUBE PLAY LIST OF EU 2013 CONFERENCE INTERVIEWS

Here is a YouTube playlist, including interviews with several key speakers at the January conference ELECTRIC UNIVERSE 2013—The Tipping Point. The list includes interviews with Wal Thornhill and David Talbott, A P David, Gerald Pollack, Dean Radin, and Mae-Wan Ho.



edit:
Werkt niet forum maakt er een youtube filmpje van, zo werkt het wel:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL ... 8_q2lePi0O
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: baphomet
Omhoog
Gebruikersavatar
baphomet
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 23693
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 16:08

ma 04 feb 2013, 12:12

Thanks Broeder Combinius!!
1119 AD
Gebruikersavatar
dodeca
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 1297
Lid geworden op: zo 28 aug 2011, 19:54

di 05 feb 2013, 12:26

Plasma in Space experiment.

Double layers en Birkeland stromen spiraal vorming en DNA structuren

a must see, bij sommige uitkomsten waren ze zo geschrokken dat er een zich zelf maar even opsloot om "bij te komen"

met engelse ondertitels, druk op knop links onder in player (de meest linkse)



haha na een minuut meteen al raak!.....Primer Fields!....maar er is meer veel meer want er is altijd veel meer..
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: ThaViking, combi, Permuter 0., ninti
Omhoog
Gebruikersavatar
dodeca
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 1297
Lid geworden op: zo 28 aug 2011, 19:54

vr 08 feb 2013, 12:53

Schitterende stick of squatterman. Let op rondom de stickman de twee cups van primerfields!

Afbeelding

A common theme in creation myths is that the first human being appeared in the sky, often as a metamorphosis of a divine creator.

On Tahiti, people remembered the time before creation when “an expanse of water … covered the abyss, and the god Tino-ta’ata … floating on the surface.” The god’s name was stated to mean “Human Form”. The Yuki (Mendocino County, California) told a similar myth concerning the first appearance of their creator and civiliser:

“There was only water, and over it a fog. On the water was foam. The foam moved round and round continually, and from it came a voice. After a time there issued from the foam a person in human form. He had wing-feathers of the eagle on his head. This was Taikó-mol [‘solitude walker’]. … He stood on the foam, which still revolved. There was no light.”

On Pentecost Island (Vanuatu, Melanesia), it is said that, long ago, the god “Tagaro came down from heaven”, adopting “a human form, with superhuman power” and acting as a creator, who “made men and other things”. And the Kamilaroi (New South Wales, Australia) envisioned the supreme god, Baiame, “as of an incomprehensible greatness in appearance”, physically indistinguishable from his “throne of transparent crystal of vast magnitude, which has its base in the great water, and rises to a stupendous height towards the stars”: “In their notion of God’s appearance he is great beyond conception, beautiful to look upon, and immovably fixed in this crystal rock, with only the upper half of a supernatural human body visible.”

Some traditions specify that this anthropomorph apparition served as a sun, before the current sun had commenced to ply the ecliptic path. Thus, a tribe of the Wiradjuri from the headwaters of the Murrumbidgee River (central New South Wales, Australia) recounted that summers were milder when a human ancestor served as a permanent sun:

“It was not always so. The aborigines have a legend … which tells of a time when the earth was not parched by such a sun; when it was ever day, but the daylight was the radiance of a human ancestor, and when the trees and shrubs and flowers were as bright and plentiful as they are now in the regions that are not wilted by our sun. The sun, they say, is an ancestor – a human – that was not understood …”

Just so, the Quiché Maya remembered the excessive heat of the sun when it had risen in the east for the first time and possessed a human countenance:

“And then the face of the earth was dried out by the sun. The sun was like a person when he revealed himself. His face was hot, so he dried out the face of the earth. Before the sun came up it was soggy, and the face of the earth was muddy before the sun came up. And when the sun had risen just a short distance he was like a person, and his heat was unbearable. Since he revealed himself only when he was born, it is only his reflection that now remains. As they put it in the ancient text, / ‘The visible sun is not the real one.’

Pursuing this theme further, in many cultures the enigmatic ‘sun man’ manifested as an expression of the luminous axis mundi or ‘world axis’, often doubling as a cosmic mountain or tree. For the ancient Egyptians, Shu, who lifted up the sky with his two arms, was “a god of light, or light personified”. As the Coffin Texts have it:

“I am this soul of Shu which is in the flame of the fiery blast which Atum kindled with his own hand. … I am the soul of Shu, for whom N?t was placed above and G?b under his feet, and I am between them. … I am Shu whom Atum fashioned, and this garment of mine is the air of life. … It is I who make the sky light after darkness, my pleasant colour is (due to) the air which goes forth after me from the mouth of Atum …”

Judaeo-Christian Gnostics portrayed the first ancestor, Adam, as a giant man standing in the centre of the earth, who was endowed with a “glorious appearance”, “the image of his face burning with glorious splendor like the orb of the sun, and the light of his eyes was like the light of the sun, and the image of his body was like unto the sparkling of crystal.”Indian philosophers similarly equated the fig tree A?vattha, whose light was “the yonder sun”, with the prototypical man Brahman or Puru?a (‘person’):

“… that indeed is called the Bright, that is called Brahman, that alone is called the Immortal. All worlds are contained in it …”

“I know that great person (purusha) of sunlike lustre beyond the darkness. … This whole universe is filled by this person (purusha), to whom there is nothing superior, from whom there is nothing different, than whom there is nothing smaller or larger, who stands alone, fixed like a tree in the sky.”

On Kiribati (Micronesia), “the beam of wood that had lifted the sky” was styled “the First Tree, the Ancestor Sun”. And the Desana (Brazilian Amazonia) submitted that “the creative Sun holds and carries the cosmos, of which it is the center or axis, as the spine holds and carries the body … It is the ‘sun axis’ that holds together the upper, middle, and lower worlds …”

The notion of a transient blazing humanoid in the sky was fated to remain utterly bizarre until a decade ago, when plasma physicist Anthony Peratt reported on high-energy density plasma instabilities that transform an initially cylindrical plasma beam via a stack of toroids into a so-called ‘squatting man’, emitting extremely dazzling synchrotron radiation light. Recognising this modern-day homunculus in countless petroglyphs, Peratt was man enough to go public with the idea that such ‘stickmen’ had graced prehistoric skies in the form of intense aurorae. Mythical data such as presented above, of which Peratt was unaware, bolster this hypothesis, especially insofar as the preternatural ‘man’ materialises as a form of the axis mundi. In other traditions, the creator dispatches a paradigmatic man to the earth shortly before departing; drawing a curtain over the ‘golden age’, the teachings of the ideal man usher in the age of ‘history’. Peratt’s simulations converge to the extent that the ‘squatting man’ emerges towards the end of the plasma sequence, just before the pinch collapses.

So far, the literature on the experimental formation of a ‘plasma man’ appears to be limited to Peratt’s enunciations. Hopefully this work will be given hands and feet by fellow plasma physicists with access to the requisite resources and an attitude that is neither spineless nor lacklustre.
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: blackbox, Permuter 0.
Omhoog
Plaats reactie

Terug naar “Symbolen / Getallen / Symboliek / Etymology”